Miffed and puzzled by this decision. Why the incessant need to allow officers more freedom to randomly stop people?

Guess I would be interested to hear the opposite side of this but I cannot see how this makes any sense whatsoever. Seems to presume guilt before innocence or at the very least takes any facts out of it and limits it completely to the subjectivity of the officer.

Just seems like further money scams by our local and state govt.'s. Others thoughts?

Playing here is the closest thing to heaven. Really, I mean it's amazing to be in a place where the fans truly cherish their football team and stick behind them win or lose. We players love them, too. I feel a sense of accomplishment playing here, we are a special breed of football players with a great opportunity." ~ tOSU LB Brian Rolle

I consider myself to be one of the biggest cop supporters and defenders on here, but this is bullshit. Do the majority of cops even want this type of power? In the court of law you need to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How could a court uphold something that would clearly at least have significant doubt. Too much power as far as I am concerned.

I'll get nailed for doing 70 in a 65, my luck. However, the asshole on 71N this morning, in his Lexus SUV who drove 50mph while consistently checking hiS laptop will continue to be allowed behind the wheel.

Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB

I agree this ruling is BS. Hopefully cops will use it to nail people going 100 mph on the highway. There is NO WAY they should be able to visually confirm anything less than say 20 mph over the speed limit. The next step will be for you and I to be able to attest to some other vehicle's speed and have a cop write them a ticket.

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......

The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......

The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......

The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?

New Rome?

New Rome no longer exists. The Visigoths showed up.

The courts brought the hammer down on that glorified speed trap in 2004. The only place I ever got a speeding ticket for doing 37mph in a 35mph zone btw. (seriously)

After reading the actual opinion, I'm not troubled by this at all. Officer also had a radar gun that registered the guy as going 83 in a 60, but could not produce his radar-training certification on cross examination, which potentially could knock out the radar gun reading.

If this was a more serious crime with more serious consequences upon a conviction, I'd be inclined to lean toward the other side of the debate.

CP wrote:After reading the actual opinion, I'm not troubled by this at all. Officer also had a radar gun that registered the guy as going 83 in a 60, but could not produce his radar-training certification on cross examination, which potentially could knock out the radar gun reading.

If this was a more serious crime with more serious consequences upon a conviction, I'd be inclined to lean toward the other side of the debate.

That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.

"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."

smalls1129 wrote:That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.

I think it's a much different case if it's a more reasonable speed. If the cop was trying to eyeball 40 in a 35 and his radar gun gets thrown out, that case doesn't have the same result. Doing 83 in a 60 like in this case? Sorry, he got busted and should just pay the fine.

smalls1129 wrote:That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.

I think it's a much different case if it's a more reasonable speed. If the cop was trying to eyeball 40 in a 35 and his radar gun gets thrown out, that case doesn't have the same result. Doing 83 in a 60 like in this case? Sorry, he got busted and should just pay the fine.

The speed doesn't matter. The judge ruled that with experience that a cop can eyeball whether a person is speeding or not. Like it or not this is precedent now, meaning a cop will get a conviction whether he "sees" it as 5 over or 10 over is insignificant.

"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."

smalls1129 wrote:The speed doesn't matter. The judge ruled that with experience that a cop can eyeball whether a person is speeding or not. Like it or not this is precedent now, meaning a cop will get a conviction whether he "sees" it as 5 over or 10 over is insignificant.

Not at all true. All the Supreme Court ruled was that the cop's estimation of the speed can be considered evidence at trial on the speed conviction. How that evidence decides the case is still a question for the trier of fact.

Cops have always been free to issue citations based on their experience; the fact that it was his eyeball estimation doesn't preclude it from being evidence. It is, and its effectiveness has to be dealt with by the trier of fact.

New Rome police had systematically taken advantage of the village's sudden drop (from 45 mph to 35 mph) in posted speed along the busy thoroughfare of West Broad Street to pull over thousands of motorists, raising nearly $400,000 gross annually from speeding tickets but primarily vehicle citations including trivial offenses such as dusty taillights and improperly tinted windows. Nearly all of this money was funneled back into the police force, which almost exclusively dealt with traffic violations and so essentially existed to fund itself. The 60-resident village had as many as 14 policemen (all part-time), with the Village Council wanting more.[3]

Many local business owners complained that customers were being driven away by the village's reputation, and there were many reports of arbitrary and even abusive conduct at the hands of the New Rome police, who even ventured into surrounding jurisdictions to arrest people over unpaid traffic tickets.

The Ohio Department of Transportation eventually decided that New Rome's lower speed limit was inconsistent with state law guidelines. The New Rome police force itself was suspended by the village in 2003 when its chief resigned, shortly after the village's mayor's court was abolished by the state, and so the speed trap came to an end.

They suspended the whole fucking police force for being corrupt cock gobblers.

Apples and oranges. Municipalities creating speed traps by artificially changing the speed limits is an entirely different ballgame than what occurred in the case that is the subject of this thread (IE whether a defendant can avoid a conviction when one of the forms of evidence can't be admitted for whatever reason).

This guy was exceeding the speed limit by a ton, the radar gun evidence wasn't admissible because the cop couldn't properly establish himself as an expert while on the stand, and the court decided there was still enough evidence to convict.

To "fine" someone based on a guess is improper. If the cop failed to follow a procedure or was negligent in that regard (insuring his certificate was valid)then the case should have been thrown out...........Believe me, there are plenty more legitimate stops to be made with very little room (or need) for "lawyerin"........

dem425 wrote:To "fine" someone based on a guess is improper. If the cop failed to follow a procedure or was negligent in that regard (insuring his certificate was valid)then the case should have been thrown out...........Believe me, there are plenty more legitimate stops to be made with very little room (or need) for "lawyerin"........

Yeah, seems this could be covered under "reckless driving" or "too fast for conditions". Both arbitrary, judgement calls

...but it is Ohio, eh?

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Spin wrote:Is anyone else worried that today it is "You looked like you were speeding, here's your ticket" to tomorrow "You 'looked' like you were up to something so you're under arrest"?

No.

They can do that now. Or 30 years ago.

I know that. Just looking for all the conspiracy theorists, figured they would be all over this thread. I think they all moved to the NASCAR forums.

Cops have always been able to write tickets based on their perception. Go 65 down the OTP in a blizzard and find out. The thing is they rarely write them up, because they're easier to fight in court, which costs the city money, including PD OT. The main reason for radar and laser is to gather evidence and get people to pay the waiver.